- Joined
- Dec 10, 2017
- Messages
- 10,720
- Reaction score
- 5,260
- Location
- Middle Tennessee
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Because they don't have it. The White House has it.
Which means they run a story on hearsay ... again?!?
Because they don't have it. The White House has it.
Which means they run a story on hearsay ... again?!?
Enigma I don't have a link directly. It transpired during the House Intel public trial which I watched. It was the day that Vindman was there to testify. Rep. Nunes, CA, Rep. Ratcliffe, TX and Jim Jordon, OH while cross examination of Vindman all three of them put Vindman on the spot with their prodding questions of who leaked the call that ultimately ended up with the whistleblower who claimed he received "firsthand knowledge" of what transpired on the call. Well it had to be one of those that were listening in on the call. When it finally got to the point where they asked Vindman if he was the one that leaked the call to the 'whistleblower', Shifty Schiff stopped the questioning and said Vindman did not have to answer that question. I don't know about you but if I didn't leak the call, I would have been ready and willing to answer that question. Vindman under oath did not.
There should be one into the DNC, since they were linked to Ukraine interference into the 2016 election.
Who’s the president? Provide me a United States Code that states that a president can’t hold aid! Because I was looking and nothing so provide it! Oh that’s right you want us to just believe you? What if we refuse. Jail us? You people are trying to get a fast pass to win and the republicans should actually wake up because you didn’t
Enigma I don't have a link directly. It transpired during the House Intel public trial which I watched. It was the day that Vindman was there to testify. Rep. Nunes, CA, Rep. Ratcliffe, TX and Jim Jordon, OH while cross examination of Vindman all three of them put Vindman on the spot with their prodding questions of who leaked the call that ultimately ended up with the whistleblower who claimed he received "firsthand knowledge" of what transpired on the call. Well it had to be one of those that were listening in on the call to be firsthand. When it finally got to the point where they asked Vindman if he was the one that leaked the call to the 'whistleblower', Shifty Schiff stopped the questioning and said Vindman did not have to answer that question. I don't know about you but if I didn't leak the call, I would have been ready and willing to answer that question. Vindman under oath did not.
Enigma I don't have a link directly. It transpired during the House Intel public trial which I watched. It was the day that Vindman was there to testify. Rep. Nunes, CA, Rep. Ratcliffe, TX and Jim Jordon, OH while cross examination of Vindman all three of them put Vindman on the spot with their prodding questions of who leaked the call that ultimately ended up with the whistleblower who claimed he received "firsthand knowledge" of what transpired on the call. Well it had to be one of those that were listening in on the call to be firsthand. When it finally got to the point where they asked Vindman if he was the one that leaked the call to the 'whistleblower', Shifty Schiff stopped the questioning and said Vindman did not have to answer that question. I don't know about you but if I didn't leak the call, I would have been ready and willing to answer that question. Vindman under oath did not.
It is pretty ****ty that the NSC leaked again.
On the highlighted part I would say that the lawyer can neither confirm nor deny anything that the NYT references in the book/claimes is written in the book. He cannot speak about the content.
You sir, are a tool of the Kremlin.
You sir, are a tool of the Kremlin.
the GAO says you are absolutely misguided
It was leaked by the NSC, so you tell me....
The number of books....and movies about the Trump administration will be around for a decade or two. Personally, I'm looking forward to the movies, maybe even a mini-series akin to House of Cards.
It is pretty ****ty that the NSC leaked again.
On the highlighted part I would say that the lawyer can neither confirm nor deny anything that the NYT references in the book/claimes is written in the book. He cannot speak about the contents of the book.
I seem to recall that he did testify under oath thst he did not have any contact with the WB or have any direct knowledge of who it was. If Vindman is the leaker, he committed perjury or is practicing plausable deniability.Enigma I don't have a link directly. It transpired during the House Intel public trial which I watched. It was the day that Vindman was there to testify. Rep. Nunes, CA, Rep. Ratcliffe, TX and Jim Jordon, OH while cross examination of Vindman all three of them put Vindman on the spot with their prodding questions of who leaked the call that ultimately ended up with the whistleblower who claimed he received "firsthand knowledge" of what transpired on the call. Well it had to be one of those that were listening in on the call to be firsthand. When it finally got to the point where they asked Vindman if he was the one that leaked the call to the 'whistleblower', Shifty Schiff stopped the questioning and said Vindman did not have to answer that question. I don't know about you but if I didn't leak the call, I would have been ready and willing to answer that question. Vindman under oath did not.
It was leaked by the NSC, so you tell me....
There should be one into the DNC, since they were linked to Ukraine interference into the 2016 election.
You have been consistent and seem unpartisan about it, which I respect but i have to ask; have you thought through how the mechanics of the examination should be conducted. Lets assume you get your wish of testomony from him, hiw do you do that and not violate the defendants rights, prejudice the jury, and jeapordize exposing privileged information?Let's hear from Bolton directly.....right?
how do we know it was the NSC? why could it not have been bolton himself who covertly exposed the book to the media?
You have been consistent and seem unpartisan about it, which I respect but i have to ask; have you thought through how the mechanics of the examination should be conducted. Lets assume you get your wish of testomony from him, hiw do you do that and not violate the defendants rights, prejudice the jury, and jeapordize exposing privileged information?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Maybe, could be ... who knows ...
There's no back pedal. You engaged in naked adoration and Trump fluffing. And I laughed. End of story.
Thats kinda the point. For all we know there isnt any source and yhe NYT concocted the story themselves. They ran a story that is unverifiable. The NYT is asking people to blindly trust them and some people here think thsts an adequate predicate to demand Boltons testimony before the senate.how do we know it was the NSC? why could it not have been bolton himself who covertly exposed the book to the media?
Someone from the wh leaked it. Its undergoing clearance at the nscp. My guess it was whoever is anonymous.